add_set_actor_scale_node

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this mutates the blueprint graph, whether it requires the blueprint to be open/loaded, what side effects occur, or how errors are reported. The example and KB link add usage context but no behavioral traits. A mutation tool with zero annotation coverage should disclose its effect on the blueprint graph; this one does not.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose statement is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact param listings, a KB pointer, and an example. Every section earns its place with no filler. The structure is clean and scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers both parameters, provides a usage example, and a KB reference. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. Minor deduction: the KB link points to a chaos physics topic that seems mismatched with actor-scale functionality, and the description does not note the graph-mutation side effect, which would help completeness for a tool with no annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify node_position as 'Optional [X, Y] graph position,' which adds format meaning beyond the bare 'array of number' schema. However, blueprint_name is described as 'Blueprint name,' which merely restates the schema title. The concrete example value ('/Game/MCP_Test/BP_Example') helps anchor the format. This is partial compensation for the 0% coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb+resource pairing ('Add a Set Actor Scale 3D node') with an explicit purpose ('to set the actor's 3D scale'). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_set_actor_location_node and add_set_actor_rotation_node, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. The '3D scale' qualifier and the verb 'set' (vs 'get' in add_get_actor_scale_node) provide enough clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling add_*_node tools. There are no exclusions, no prerequisites (e.g., that the blueprint must exist first), and no mention of alternatives. The KB reference points to a chaos-physics document which appears unrelated to actor scale, providing no routing value. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.